- #1
mix34
- 1
- 0
Dear all,
I currently a student in mechanical engineering and i reached the conclusion that maths from the point of view of mathematicians is lot more interesting than the eyes of engineers (for me at least).
One of my friends in the maths department suggested to me to read real analysis Walter Rudin as a starting point and combine it with Burkill a first course in mathematical analysis.
In general i am just in the beginning of reading these books (just chapter 1) and i find both quite easy to read and understand each ones proof. However whenever i study Rudin and i read his proof i am not sure why his proof follows these steps (why use the argument the way he does? I can see why his proof are so well structured but how did he know to make this structure? Even the way he is phrasing and the sequence of arguments are deliberate towards the proof). I always try to prove the same theorem as him before reading his proof but i end up with an alternative method (most of the times quite different, though i still use the same theorems but not the same exact arguments or at best my phrasing is not the same does this mean my proof is wrong?). In general i always aim not to deviate beyond what is assumed in the chapter so to me it seems that my proof also always makes sense.
My questions are: what am i missing from Rudin and how can i make sure that my proof is right without doubts just like Rudin's (i was thinking about using propositional logic within my own proof but this could be too much)??
Am i on the right path with Rudin that makes me ask these questions? Or should i stick to Burkill, which i does not really make me have doubts (he is way more intuitive).
Thank you for your time and effort
I currently a student in mechanical engineering and i reached the conclusion that maths from the point of view of mathematicians is lot more interesting than the eyes of engineers (for me at least).
One of my friends in the maths department suggested to me to read real analysis Walter Rudin as a starting point and combine it with Burkill a first course in mathematical analysis.
In general i am just in the beginning of reading these books (just chapter 1) and i find both quite easy to read and understand each ones proof. However whenever i study Rudin and i read his proof i am not sure why his proof follows these steps (why use the argument the way he does? I can see why his proof are so well structured but how did he know to make this structure? Even the way he is phrasing and the sequence of arguments are deliberate towards the proof). I always try to prove the same theorem as him before reading his proof but i end up with an alternative method (most of the times quite different, though i still use the same theorems but not the same exact arguments or at best my phrasing is not the same does this mean my proof is wrong?). In general i always aim not to deviate beyond what is assumed in the chapter so to me it seems that my proof also always makes sense.
My questions are: what am i missing from Rudin and how can i make sure that my proof is right without doubts just like Rudin's (i was thinking about using propositional logic within my own proof but this could be too much)??
Am i on the right path with Rudin that makes me ask these questions? Or should i stick to Burkill, which i does not really make me have doubts (he is way more intuitive).
Thank you for your time and effort